Can spatial expansion possibly be detected?

[dkane75]

From my perspective, probably the most perplexing fallacy in science is the possibility of the detection of spatial expansion.

The metaphor that is always used is if we think of a balloon being blown up. The entire fabric of the balloon is always stretching out. In other words, its very dimensional scale is growing.

To say that a resident of the two-dimensional surface that is the balloon can possibly devise an experiment to test whether its dimensions are growing seems to be the height of philosophical absurdity.

In our universe, this is the same as saying that we can detect the expansion of a meter stick. In other words, for us, a meter stick will always be a meter stick. If our very standards of measure are changing scale, then it stands to reason that there cannot be such a thing as an "objective measurement" of dimensionality itself.

The bottom line is that the purely theoretical notion of spatial expansion is an absolute one (we cannot separate ourselves from spatial dimensionality) whereas all of our experiments deal in relativities.

I have recently developed a full-fledged theory about the nature of the universe that philosophically grounds such observations as galactic redshift and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. You can see NewTheory.info for more background.

The bottom line is that the universe transcends the notion of temporal measurability. You might say that this suggests that the universe is "eternal", but this notion depends on the philosophically ungrounded idea of "infinity".

The nature of the objective past is to appear to consist of lesser amounts of energy, until the line-of-sight reaches a point popularly called a "singularity" (which appears to consist of the smallest possible amount of energy). To appear to consist of lesser amounts of energy is the same as saying that the dimensional scale seems more compacted. In other words, an observer will always feel that his temporal context is "stretched out" when compared with any of his observations. This, I feel, is a far more philosophically adequate interpretation of Hubble's Law (than the ridiculous notion of spatial expansion).

[validity]

From this post

The metaphor that is always used is if we think of a balloon being blown up. The entire fabric of the balloon is always stretching out. In other words, its very dimensional scale is growing.

Common problems with an analogy is that it fails to compare completely or that it is interpreted to an extent where the analogy was not intended to go. The balloon analogy refers to space not matter or energy. The balloon analogy normally has either ants on the surface or my favoite coins. The coins are glued to the balloon surface. When the balloon expands the region of space gravitationally (glued) bound by matter (coin) does not expand. This refined analogy fits observational data.

To say that a resident of the two-dimensional surface that is the balloon can possibly devise an experiment to test whether its dimensions are growing seems to be the height of philosophical absurdity.

Again the balloon analogy does not say this. It is a mis-interpretation. When using an analogy do not forget to refer back to the situation and evidence it is being made analogous with as a reference to see if you are still in the domain of the analogy.

From NewTheory.info

However, there is one theory that actually predicts the existence of these two bizarre occurrences. The only problem is that this theory undermines the very ground upon which the Western scientific paradigm stands.

Not true. Big Bang nucleosynthesis postulated the existence of dark matter in the 1970's.

However, the entire Western scientific paradigm is based upon the notion that space and time are empty "containers" inside of which the substance called mass-energy exists.

Not true. Relational theory makes your comment "entire" false.

This is because if the universe is indeed a closed system, then there is no logical reason why it should violate the law of the conservation of mass-energy (spacetime). So, either the cherished law of conservation is null and void, as many theoretical particle physicists are wont to claim, or the universe itself is part of a much more awesome system than has ever before been claimed by mainstream science.

Not true. No conservation laws are being violated. The energy to drive the expansion is already in the universe.

Traditionalists of all stripes will necessarily be resistant to this theory.

Probably true, but not limited to traditionalists.

My thoughts

Interesting idea but needs to be purged of errors and unsubstantiated claims. How sound will the theory be when errors are corrected ? Can the unsubstantiated claims be substantiated ?

[Poseidon]

Spatial expansion is explained by the Doppler effect.
Objects appear slightly blue as they move towrds one.
They appear slightly red as they move away (The red shift)

The further that stars are away from us, the more red they get.
Thus everything is moving away from us.
Thus the universe is expanding.

[Holiday20310401]

Originally Posted by dkane75

The metaphor that is always used is if we think of a balloon being blown up. The entire fabric of the balloon is always stretching out. In other words, its very dimensional scale is growing.

Fractal Universe!! Thats my belief.

Originally Posted by dkane75

To say that a resident of the two-dimensional surface that is the balloon can possibly devise an experiment to test whether its dimensions are growing seems to be the height of philosophical absurdity.

Obviously, you'd translate the surface of a balloon to a 3D surface. And the whole thing, including the interior is something else.

Originally Posted by dkane75

In our universe, this is the same as saying that we can detect the expansion of a meter stick. In other words, for us, a meter stick will always be a meter stick. If our very standards of measure are changing scale, then it stands to reason that there cannot be such a thing as an "objective measurement" of dimensionality itself.

Maybe dimension is nonexistent in actuality. It is interesting to note that if we perceived the expansion of a meter stick it is still 3D, and yet we are 3D. And so it must be for the universe that if it is expanding there must be an outside to it, otherwise it cannot relatively expand. (Though the expansion of the universe is just of Olber's Bubble, not of the whole of the cosmos)

So dimension is like the force of enclosure. Even though objects do not enclose or are outside of an object, that's a poorer way of looking at it; objects are only either a part of another object, or not a part of it. There is nothing to really say that something can enclose something else, because that would constitute a change in dimension. That's what change in dimension must do. It allows for systems to enclose systems, but without compromising all of the effect they have on each other.

I think dimension is a lot like position, velocity, and acceleration graphs.

If we are to perceive a 3D object, then in a 2D perception, we see an ever changing face. If there is a sphere, then there is motion and therefore we get the end of the sphere appearing as the point, turning into a larger and larger circle, until it shrinks back down again. In a 1D perception and observing a 2D object, there would just be an ever changing line. If a circle, then the line expands and shrinks and oscillates that function. In a 3D perception, observing a 4D object will exhibit motion too. A 4D sphere might appear as a sphere expanding and contracting over and over again. Hypercube as an example.

So it is like the position velocity and acceleration graphs in proportion to time, because if I and fixed in a position-time state lets say, then the area of the position state equals velocity. (And lets say position is 1D and velocity is 2D and acceleration is 3D; area is the appeared motion, and slope is the fixed state.) So velocity doesn't appear as constant unless it is a square area, right?, or exhibiting uniform motion which is like 0D . And if I am fixed to a velocity-time state then the area equals the acceleration, and the slope equals the fixed position at the tangent.

So the universe is only perceived to be expanding, when we have delved into a realm transcending the mind, constituting the need to expand it to a 4D realm in which the universe is perceived instantaneously at the same time that we are just a part of it (NOT INSIDE OF IT). It is an illusion that we are inside of the universe, that it encloses us, if it truly does expand. (If it were endless, then yes it does enclose us, but perhaps scientists are right)

So no, we cannot measure spatial expansion. Besides, dimensionality is all in the mind anyways as a means to organize the environment, I believe, though I have absolutely no proofs to back any of this stuff up with.

[BaCaRdi]

My take on this, is a truly fractal reality. We don't understand pure energy , we see the wake of such, as in wave particle duality.

One can't grasp Quantum Physics by means of reality, since reality is the security measure, in a layer approach.

Our huge issue with the big-bang theory is the Horizon issue.

As Einstein predicted, It is an impossibility to measure absolute motion or absolute non motion.

The rod/stick of a known length metaphor holds true, but only to the observer. However if there was a second observer he would see the difference in the others rod/stick, but is still unable to see that his rod/stick has also been affected.

Rule number 1..haha of Quantum Mechanics states;

Newtonian Physics are valid only in each snapshot of reality to the observer. When dealing with quantum theorem you need to completely shed those Newtonian physics.


-Marc

[BaCaRdi]

Very well said...absolutely yes!

We are 3D beings, so your see 3D.

Say there was a place, of 2D, those living in this 2D place, would see 2D only.

If we where to say, wave our hand in their realm, what you think they would see?

Our hand and arms waving doesn't only show as 2D to them, but we have motion, how do you suppose you show the third dimension?

Again they can't see the 3D planes, so they try to 2D'ize this "thing". Since they can't really see the other planes, they see something very odd indeed.

Matter of fact they see something of odd motion, something like a odd liquid metal, that comes in and out of their senses.

Sound somewhat similar,to say, I don't know...a black-hole?

-BaC

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Fractal Universe!! Thats my belief.



Obviously, you'd translate the surface of a balloon to a 3D surface. And the whole thing, including the interior is something else.



Maybe dimension is nonexistent in actuality. It is interesting to note that if we perceived the expansion of a meter stick it is still 3D, and yet we are 3D. And so it must be for the universe that if it is expanding there must be an outside to it, otherwise it cannot relatively expand. (Though the expansion of the universe is just of Olber's Bubble, not of the whole of the cosmos)

So dimension is like the force of enclosure. Even though objects do not enclose or are outside of an object, that's a poorer way of looking at it; objects are only either a part of another object, or not a part of it. There is nothing to really say that something can enclose something else, because that would constitute a change in dimension. That's what change in dimension must do. It allows for systems to enclose systems, but without compromising all of the effect they have on each other.

I think dimension is a lot like position, velocity, and acceleration graphs.

If we are to perceive a 3D object, then in a 2D perception, we see an ever changing face. If there is a sphere, then there is motion and therefore we get the end of the sphere appearing as the point, turning into a larger and larger circle, until it shrinks back down again. In a 1D perception and observing a 2D object, there would just be an ever changing line. If a circle, then the line expands and shrinks and oscillates that function. In a 3D perception, observing a 4D object will exhibit motion too. A 4D sphere might appear as a sphere expanding and contracting over and over again. Hypercube as an example.

So it is like the position velocity and acceleration graphs in proportion to time, because if I and fixed in a position-time state lets say, then the area of the position state equals velocity. (And lets say position is 1D and velocity is 2D and acceleration is 3D; area is the appeared motion, and slope is the fixed state.) So velocity doesn't appear as constant unless it is a square area, right?, or exhibiting uniform motion which is like 0D . And if I am fixed to a velocity-time state then the area equals the acceleration, and the slope equals the fixed position at the tangent.

So the universe is only perceived to be expanding, when we have delved into a realm transcending the mind, constituting the need to expand it to a 4D realm in which the universe is perceived instantaneously at the same time that we are just a part of it (NOT INSIDE OF IT). It is an illusion that we are inside of the universe, that it encloses us, if it truly does expand. (If it were endless, then yes it does enclose us, but perhaps scientists are right)

So no, we cannot measure spatial expansion. Besides, dimensionality is all in the mind anyways as a means to organize the environment, I believe, though I have absolutely no proofs to back any of this stuff up with.

[BaCaRdi]

Amen Holiday!

For others;

Let see, if you don't believe in a fractal universe you haven't read enough.

Case in point;

Your heart beat, your heart beat you feel and test is that of minute smaller heart beats. Every cell has it's own, the affect is overall a muscle contraction a beat.

However, if we change scales they have found the exact! yes, exact same pattern, just smaller or larger!

Well we know are hearts beats, what they found is, the over all pattern doesn't change at all! No matter how infinite we go, however macro or nano you wish to go, to infinity!

Welcome to the fractal universe!

As Einstein theorized, absolute motion and/or absolute non-motion is a impossibility.

Ohh well, the simple answer to the balloon theory. Is what happens when you stop blowing, is it still expanding?


-BaC

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Fractal Universe!! Thats my belief.
**SNIP** Sorry about that -BaC

[Holiday20310401]

I just want to mention though that the fractal universe is, IMO, a projection of reality, of the mind's environment... in no way does it correspond to actuality. I still believe actuality is monistic, reality dualistic (evoking the causal duality symmetries on the mind).

Also, dimension is subjective, not objective, again though... my opinion. I don't think a fractal universe implies any connection to dimensions or membranes if in the possible actuality.

[BaCaRdi]

Agreed!

In my opinion the membranes are reality

The membranes IMO are the security features, again the layer approach. As I have stated before, reality is just that, a security feature. Break the membrane, break the reality.

However I do believe they are/is under and overlaying realities.

-BaC

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

I just want to mention though that the fractal universe is, IMO, a projection of reality, of the mind's environment... in no way does it correspond to actuality. I still believe actuality is monistic, reality dualistic (evoking the causal duality symmetries on the mind).

Also, dimension is subjective, not objective, again though... my opinion. I don't think a fractal universe implies any connection to dimensions or membranes if in the possible actuality.

[BaCaRdi]

That would be somewhat invalid;

What is seen is wave compression. Pick a wave any wave

The Doppler effect, is not that of color at all. It is of sound, a mass traveling towards you emits a high frequency sound. When it is passing you it emits a lower frequency sound, that is the Doppler effect.

Since mass is compressing the wave as it moves, the forward motion causes the waves in front to compress, the waves at the rear expand.

Redshift is a shift in the frequency of a photon toward lower energy, or longer wavelength.

Again "light" is the byproduct of energy or the affect of such. Where there is light there is also heat, again a by product of energy.

Light is a proud member of the electromagnetic spectrum, so is heat.

Of course there is also the big-bang theory..issue, known simple as
"The Horizon Problem".


The truth is there is no such red or blue light, it's via infrared we see these so-called lights. Since we can't really see infrared, we add colors to make sense of what we are trying show visually.

It's the heat byproduct that is red and blue, there is no visible light there sorry.

We can make them green and purple if you want, it's just a software modification for a display. Those colors are of purely artificial creation.

-BaC
The light part is up for debate, and there are many theories otherwise.

Originally Posted by Poseidon

Spatial expansion is explained by the Doppler effect.
Objects appear slightly blue as they move towrds one.
They appear slightly red as they move away (The red shift)

The further that stars are away from us, the more red they get.
Thus everything is moving away from us.
Thus the universe is expanding.